Benny Benitez: Parky 6 Benny 2 (Benitez watch.). Inter sack the waiter.

[Dinho lad]

did jason mccateer say that o'neil and hodgson aren't experinced enough in the transfer market, or did I miss hear that?!

 

edit: on ssn

[wacko]

Parky, which part don't you understand. The club is not £400m in debt, the owners are. They have to sell up. If they only get £200m for the club, that's their problem, not LFC's.

 

My reading of the scenario is that the banks are in control, the yanks and the pack of dimwits that run your club are pretty much fucked. SORRY to see it btw as historically it is a very important institution.

 

We are simply not in the same kind of danger as Palace or Portsmouth. At least, I hope not.

 

Obviously, it could all go really, really, really tits-up, but I'm confident that we'll be right back up there within two seasons.

[Guest TrEe]

sorry to see him go... thought he did a great job at liverpool... but when he took over at liverpool, you can't say they were much bigger then we were at the time... if I remeber correctly didn't they finish fourth... 4 points ahead of us? and the season befor they didn't even make the top 4 while we finished third.. I always remeber wishing that we got Benitez and Liverpool got Souness...  if only.....

[clintdempsey]

He had half as much to spend as Fergie/Chelsea's managers, and twice as much to do. In absolute terms, no his signings weren't good enough, but in value-for-money terms, he didn't do badly.

 

He spent £60m more gross than Fergie from 04/05-08/09. And £60m less than Chelsea in the same period.

If you count in 09/10 as well the figures are £90m more gross than Fergie and £38m less than Chelsea. It's not like he hasn't had money to spend is it?

[Cronky]

Parky, which part don't you understand. The club is not £400m in debt, the owners are. They have to sell up. If they only get £200m for the club, that's their problem, not LFC's.

 

That's not my understanding of it. Just because they own the club doesn't mean they are personally liable for the company's debts. If the company goes bust, then the only assets that the creditors will be able to seize on are those that are part of the company.

 

What's more, if they bought the company with money from the bank which was secured against the company's assets (which I think is the case), then it's the bank that's liable to lose out, not the owners.

 

At the moment, the club is declining in value because the debt is increasing. In order to stem the debt, the club will have to sell its best players, which will affect its league position, which will lead to a further decline in value. So it's a vicious circle and neither the banks nor anyone else will be lending any more money in order to get the club out of it.

 

What you need is some mega-rich football fan like Abramovich who is prepared to take on the mess, just for the status of being the owner of Liverpool FC. I'm sure that there is interest in buying the club, but it looks like they're circling the wagons, knowing that the current owners are sitting on a declining asset and will have to admit defeat at some time. The longer they wait, the cheaper the club is going to be. Trouble is, the owners are successful businessmen, and may not like admitting failure.

 

There is some hope, in that the banks seem to have insisted on bringing in Broughton to oversee the sale of the club. But unless you get someone who is absolutely loaded, then the journey back up may be a long one.

[GM]

Have to say I will have to laugh if Liverpool struggle next season as a result of all this turmoil off the pitch, and no doubt they will lose a number of their high profile players after the World Cup. Oh, I think I may just have to gloat if they do a Portsmouth.

[Filflop1]

Daglish to take over until sale would be fun 

[Optimistic Nut]

They might have 2-3 seasons where they finish 6-10th, but unfortunately just because of their name they'll be back...twunts. Would love for them to completely fall apart.

[Dave]

Wonder if the press will repeatedly take the piss out of these Liverpool fans shouting for Kenny Dalglish and others to come back.

[Optimistic Nut]

From that list I'd go for Mark Huges, with Brian Littles and Craig Shorts on the coaching staff.

[Guest Haris Vuckic]

Parky, which part don't you understand. The club is not £400m in debt, the owners are. They have to sell up. If they only get £200m for the club, that's their problem, not LFC's.

 

They can do what the f*** they want and they will totally f*** you over.

 

They own you - if they want to whack their debts onto the club they can do that in two seconds.

 

You're f***ed - not them.

 

Of course they're not f***ed. The club is owned by a holding company. But what would be the point of transferring the debt to the club? None. Same difference. The point is, LFC is a profit-making proposition if you separate it from the debt incurred to buy the club.

 

We are not Portsmouth or Chelsea. The club is only in the red, because it's being asked to pay for itself, which it can't do. It's possible that the Yanks could run the club into the ground, but that would be very stupid from their point of view. Either they sell up fast, or the bank will take the club and sell it.

 

There's not profit in asset-stripping a club like Liverpool, because it's inherently worth more than its actual assets.

 

We're owned by a holding company mate - it just protects the owners arse further. 

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Has any decent level football club ever been 'asset-stipped'? People throw that word about all the time, but I can't think of an example.

[Cronky]

Has any decent level football club ever been 'asset-stipped'? People throw that word about all the time, but I can't think of an example.

 

Good point. You could sell some players or maybe a training ground, but you'd end up with a club that was less valuable than the one you bought, so you'd be no further on.

 

The only equivelent to the business model of asset stripping would be closing the company down and selling off the land. However, no local authority is going to give planning permission for the stadium to be torn down and the land used for other purposes. So the land without the club is likely to be worthless.

[hoppaz]

Parky, which part don't you understand. The club is not £400m in debt, the owners are. They have to sell up. If they only get £200m for the club, that's their problem, not LFC's.

 

That's not my understanding of it. Just because they own the club doesn't mean they are personally liable for the company's debts. If the company goes bust, then the only assets that the creditors will be able to seize on are those that are part of the company.

 

What's more, if they bought the company with money from the bank which was secured against the company's assets (which I think is the case), then it's the bank that's liable to lose out, not the owners.

 

At the moment, the club is declining in value because the debt is increasing. In order to stem the debt, the club will have to sell its best players, which will affect its league position, which will lead to a further decline in value. So it's a vicious circle and neither the banks nor anyone else will be lending any more money in order to get the club out of it.

 

What you need is some mega-rich football fan like Abramovich who is prepared to take on the mess, just for the status of being the owner of Liverpool FC. I'm sure that there is interest in buying the club, but it looks like they're circling the wagons, knowing that the current owners are sitting on a declining asset and will have to admit defeat at some time. The longer they wait, the cheaper the club is going to be. Trouble is, the owners are successful businessmen, and may not like admitting failure.

 

There is some hope, in that the banks seem to have insisted on bringing in Broughton to oversee the sale of the club. But unless you get someone who is absolutely loaded, then the journey back up may be a long one.

 

I am sure I read that they have this rolling 10% interest thing on the £100-odd million they put in to the club when they bought it. I think they also have a clause which means this debt is made payable immediately if the club changes hands. At this amount they will probably be holding out as long as they can until the bank calls in their loan (which they have no way of paying) which I also believe has a deadline in the not too distant future. The only way this 100-odd million plus rolling interest could be paid back is by selling their best players (assets).

 

Of course they longer they hold on the more this amount will be so I guess they are just waiting until the bank makes their move to seize control then activate this clause which will need to be paid and then the banks will have to use what is left to settle the money owed to them.

 

Bit bleak if you ask me.

 

For those who are not aware Hicks and Gillette were involved in a pension scam involving Circatex / Viasystems in South Shields if I recall correctly where money was siphoned off / disappeared in a similar business model / set-up. They was an outcry of course but they just explored some loop holes.

[nobby_solano]

Which respected manager would take over Liverpool at the state they are in?

 

Pellegrini?

 

Fowler back in?

 

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Football/Pix/pictures/2009/9/24/1253827619908/John-Barnes-001.jpg

 

you've got to hold and give but do it at the right time...

[Guest ObiChrisKenobi]

Wonder if the press will repeatedly take the piss out of these Liverpool fans shouting for Kenny Dalglish and others to come back.

 

Doubt it, they've glazed over the fans burning stuff and having protests out of the stadium. The only time it does get a mention is with positive backing.

 

As for placing a bet on the managers, I'd go with Mark Hughes, I can't see them spending more money to take a manager currently in work having spent £6m to get rid of Rafa.

 

Parky, which part don't you understand. The club is not £400m in debt, the owners are. They have to sell up. If they only get £200m for the club, that's their problem, not LFC's.

 

They can do what the fuck they want and they will totally fuck you over.

 

They own you - if they want to whack their debts onto the club they can do that in two seconds.

 

You're fucked - not them.

 

Of course they're not fucked. The club is owned by a holding company. But what would be the point of transferring the debt to the club? None. Same difference. The point is, LFC is a profit-making proposition if you separate it from the debt incurred to buy the club.

 

We are not Portsmouth or Chelsea. The club is only in the red, because it's being asked to pay for itself, which it can't do. It's possible that the Yanks could run the club into the ground, but that would be very stupid from their point of view. Either they sell up fast, or the bank will take the club and sell it.

 

There's not profit in asset-stripping a club like Liverpool, because it's inherently worth more than its actual assets.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/s/southampton/7976473.stm

 

Very similar.

[Pilko]

Would be ace if they promoted Sammy Lee.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Has any decent level football club ever been 'asset-stipped'? People throw that word about all the time, but I can't think of an example.

 

Good point. You could sell some players or maybe a training ground, but you'd end up with a club that was less valuable than the one you bought, so you'd be no further on.

 

The only equivelent to the business model of asset stripping would be closing the company down and selling off the land. However, no local authority is going to give planning permission for the stadium to be torn down and the land used for other purposes. So the land without the club is likely to be worthless.

 

I guess it's just a term people use for 'making a profit at the expensive of the club's health'... using debt to buy it etc. Obviously not what asset stripping really means.

[Cronky]

Parky, which part don't you understand. The club is not £400m in debt, the owners are. They have to sell up. If they only get £200m for the club, that's their problem, not LFC's.

 

That's not my understanding of it. Just because they own the club doesn't mean they are personally liable for the company's debts. If the company goes bust, then the only assets that the creditors will be able to seize on are those that are part of the company.

 

What's more, if they bought the company with money from the bank which was secured against the company's assets (which I think is the case), then it's the bank that's liable to lose out, not the owners.

 

At the moment, the club is declining in value because the debt is increasing. In order to stem the debt, the club will have to sell its best players, which will affect its league position, which will lead to a further decline in value. So it's a vicious circle and neither the banks nor anyone else will be lending any more money in order to get the club out of it.

 

What you need is some mega-rich football fan like Abramovich who is prepared to take on the mess, just for the status of being the owner of Liverpool FC. I'm sure that there is interest in buying the club, but it looks like they're circling the wagons, knowing that the current owners are sitting on a declining asset and will have to admit defeat at some time. The longer they wait, the cheaper the club is going to be. Trouble is, the owners are successful businessmen, and may not like admitting failure.

 

There is some hope, in that the banks seem to have insisted on bringing in Broughton to oversee the sale of the club. But unless you get someone who is absolutely loaded, then the journey back up may be a long one.

 

I am sure I read that they have this rolling 10% interest thing on the £100-odd million they put in to the club when they bought it. I think they also have a clause which means this debt is made payable immediately if the club changes hands. At this amount they will probably be holding out as long as they can until the bank calls in their loan (which they have no way of paying) which I also believe has a deadline in the not too distant future. The only way this 100-odd million plus rolling interest could be paid back is by selling their best players (assets).

 

Of course they longer they hold on the more this amount will be so I guess they are just waiting until the bank makes their move to seize control then activate this clause which will need to be paid and then the banks will have to use what is left to settle the money owed to them.

 

Bit bleak if you ask me.

 

For those who are not aware Hicks and Gillette were involved in a pension scam involving Circatex / Viasystems in South Shields if I recall correctly where money was siphoned off / disappeared in a similar business model / set-up. They was an outcry of course but they just explored some loop holes.

 

Which begs the question - what was the bank thinking about when it lent them that money under those conditions? It looks to me like the banks were, effectively, taking all the risks.

[wacko]

He had half as much to spend as Fergie/Chelsea's managers, and twice as much to do. In absolute terms, no his signings weren't good enough, but in value-for-money terms, he didn't do badly.

 

He spent £60m more gross than Fergie from 04/05-08/09. And £60m less than Chelsea in the same period.

If you count in 09/10 as well the figures are £90m more gross than Fergie and £38m less than Chelsea. It's not like he hasn't had money to spend is it?

 

So what? Apples and oranges. In summer 04, Fergie already had a fantastic squad that had won the league the previous season. Rafa had a shit squad full of dross like Diouf and Diao that Houllier had bought.

 

Spurs have spent a similar amount to Liverpool over that period, yet it took us to drop the ball for them to catch us.

 

Has any decent level football club ever been 'asset-stipped'? People throw that word about all the time, but I can't think of an example.

 

It's very rare, because it would be a retarded thing to do, financially. A large part of the value of a club is the name, the fanbase and the league licence. You can't sell those. It is possible that the stadium is on very valuable land, but otherwise, I can't see the sum of assets of any club approaching their nominal value.

Parky, which part don't you understand. The club is not £400m in debt, the owners are. They have to sell up. If they only get £200m for the club, that's their problem, not LFC's.

 

They can do what the f*** they want and they will totally f*** you over.

 

They own you - if they want to whack their debts onto the club they can do that in two seconds.

 

You're f***ed - not them.

 

Of course they're not f***ed. The club is owned by a holding company. But what would be the point of transferring the debt to the club? None. Same difference. The point is, LFC is a profit-making proposition if you separate it from the debt incurred to buy the club.

 

We are not Portsmouth or Chelsea. The club is only in the red, because it's being asked to pay for itself, which it can't do. It's possible that the Yanks could run the club into the ground, but that would be very stupid from their point of view. Either they sell up fast, or the bank will take the club and sell it.

 

There's not profit in asset-stripping a club like Liverpool, because it's inherently worth more than its actual assets.

 

We're owned by a holding company mate - it just protects the owners arse further. 

 

The point is, like I said earlier, the club itself is a money-making proposition (the club makes money, the holding loses more), it's just not a viable candidate for the private-equity model Hicks & Gillett tried.

 

 

[clintdempsey]

He had half as much to spend as Fergie/Chelsea's managers, and twice as much to do. In absolute terms, no his signings weren't good enough, but in value-for-money terms, he didn't do badly.

 

He spent £60m more gross than Fergie from 04/05-08/09. And £60m less than Chelsea in the same period.

If you count in 09/10 as well the figures are £90m more gross than Fergie and £38m less than Chelsea. It's not like he hasn't had money to spend is it?

 

So what? Apples and oranges. In summer 04, Fergie already had a fantastic squad that had won the league the previous season. Rafa had a shit squad full of dross like Diouf and Diao that Houllier had bought.

 

Spurs have spent a similar amount to Liverpool over that period, yet it took us to drop the ball for them to catch us.

 

The thing with Rafa though is that he has continued to buy shit in some cases.

 

And to be fair Spurs have spent more than you over those seasons, but they are on their 4th manager during this period. So, their board has apparently realised that their managers has bought players who weren't up to it. Much the same as what Rafa has done in some cases. I'm sure you understand this. It's the same with Chelsea really, they're on to their 5th manager in the same space of time. If you don't get the adequate results at a big club, you're out. You can bet your bottom dollar that Wenger would've been out on his arse as well if he had a net spend of over £100m with the same results they've had.

[wacko]

He had half as much to spend as Fergie/Chelsea's managers, and twice as much to do. In absolute terms, no his signings weren't good enough, but in value-for-money terms, he didn't do badly.

 

He spent £60m more gross than Fergie from 04/05-08/09. And £60m less than Chelsea in the same period.

If you count in 09/10 as well the figures are £90m more gross than Fergie and £38m less than Chelsea. It's not like he hasn't had money to spend is it?

 

So what? Apples and oranges. In summer 04, Fergie already had a fantastic squad that had won the league the previous season. Rafa had a shit squad full of dross like Diouf and Diao that Houllier had bought.

 

Spurs have spent a similar amount to Liverpool over that period, yet it took us to drop the ball for them to catch us.

 

The thing with Rafa though is that he has continued to buy shit in some cases.

 

And to be fair Spurs have spent more than you over those seasons, but they are on their 4th manager during this period. So, their board has apparently realised that their managers has bought players who weren't up to it. Much the same as what Rafa has done in some cases. I'm sure you understand this. It's the same with Chelsea really, they're on to their 5th manager in the same space of time. If you don't get the adequate results at a big club, you're out. You can bet your bottom dollar that Wenger would've been out on his arse as well if he had a net spend of over £100m with the same results they've had.

 

At Spurs it's clearly the board that is their problem. Levy doesn't know what he's doing.

 

Yeah, I do agree that Rafa has bought a lot of players who weren't good enough. Yet at the same time, he wasn't given the money to buy enough players who were good enough, anyway.

 

You can talk all day about how much more he's spent than Fergie since Rafa arrived at LFC, or how many players he's bought and sold. The bottom line is, the £85m net he was given to spend was simply not enough money to build a squad that can compete with Chelsea's or Man Utd when you're starting with a squad like Rafa had in 2004.

 

[leffe186]

He had half as much to spend as Fergie/Chelsea's managers, and twice as much to do. In absolute terms, no his signings weren't good enough, but in value-for-money terms, he didn't do badly.

 

He spent £60m more gross than Fergie from 04/05-08/09. And £60m less than Chelsea in the same period.

If you count in 09/10 as well the figures are £90m more gross than Fergie and £38m less than Chelsea. It's not like he hasn't had money to spend is it?

 

So what? Apples and oranges. In summer 04, Fergie already had a fantastic squad that had won the league the previous season. Rafa had a s*** squad full of dross like Diouf and Diao that Houllier had bought.

 

Spurs have spent a similar amount to Liverpool over that period, yet it took us to drop the ball for them to catch us.

 

The thing with Rafa though is that he has continued to buy s*** in some cases.

 

And to be fair Spurs have spent more than you over those seasons, but they are on their 4th manager during this period. So, their board has apparently realised that their managers has bought players who weren't up to it. Much the same as what Rafa has done in some cases. I'm sure you understand this. It's the same with Chelsea really, they're on to their 5th manager in the same space of time. If you don't get the adequate results at a big club, you're out. You can bet your bottom dollar that Wenger would've been out on his arse as well if he had a net spend of over £100m with the same results they've had.

 

At Spurs it's clearly the board that is their problem. Levy doesn't know what he's doing.

 

Yeah, I do agree that Rafa has bought a lot of players who weren't good enough. Yet at the same time, he wasn't given the money to buy enough players who were good enough, anyway.

 

You can talk all day about how much more he's spent than Fergie since Rafa arrived at LFC, or how many players he's bought and sold. The bottom line is, the £85m net he was given to spend was simply not enough money to build a squad that can compete with Chelsea's or Man Utd when you're starting with a squad like Rafa had in 2004.

 

Levy doesn't know what he's doing??? Can't let that one slide. If you mean that he doesn't know what he's doing when appointing managers then, well, sort of, but for Ramos there was Redknapp, for Hoddle there was Jol. If you mean he doesn't know what he's doing running a football club, well that's a bit silly. The figures really do speak for themselves.

[Liam Liam Liam O]

Liverpool fan on the radio tonight saying that Aston Villa to Liverpool was too big a step up in class for Martin O'Neill.

[Parky]

Liverpool fan on the radio tonight saying that Aston Villa to Liverpool was too big a step up in class for Martin O'Neill.